A gutsy move to increase housing and oil drilling. But not on high-speed rail
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.
The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.
Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).
I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.
One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.
But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.
Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.
But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.
“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.
Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.
“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.
But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.
“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.
Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”
Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.
Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.
The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.
Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.
A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.
You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.
One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.
But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.
The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!
Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.
One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.
It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.
Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.
“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”
But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.
Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.
In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author commends California lawmakers and the governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago, arguing that public pressure from unaffordable costs finally spurred politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage development. Particularly noteworthy is legislation allowing construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs, which overrides local zoning ordinances in eight counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. While acknowledging the measure affects zoning and remains controversial, the author maintains this vertical development is necessary because California’s population of nearly 40 million people can no longer accommodate sprawling horizontal ranch-house developments, which have become impossibly expensive and resulted in long commutes and risky wildfire encroachment.
The Legislature’s continued efforts to reform the California Environmental Quality Act receive praise for addressing how opponents have abused CEQA to block construction for reasons unrelated to environmental protection. The author highlights reforms that narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction and exempted urban infill housing projects, health clinics, manufacturing facilities, and child-care centers from lengthy review processes that local NIMBYs, businesses avoiding competition, and unions practicing “greenmail” have exploited.
The author characterizes the decision to permit production of 2,000 more oil wells annually in Kern County as “gutsy” given that oil has become a hated term among the political left. Despite acknowledging this as a compromise that also tightened offshore drilling pipeline regulations, the article suggests this move was politically smart and primarily motivated by threats of higher gas prices as two large California refineries prepare to shut down[1]. Most Democrats recognized that allowing more oil production while attempting to transition to clean energy was the appropriate political calculation, with the author crediting Republican Senator Shannon Grove’s ability to work across the aisle.
In contrast to the housing and energy legislation, the author sharply criticizes the 20-year, $1 billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money to California’s high-speed rail project, describing it as “questionable” and characterizing the overall project as “disappointing.” The article notes the project is $100 billion over budget, far behind its promised 2020 completion, and has yet to lay any tracks, with the new funding merely paying for an initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield. The author contends that the governor muscled this provision through at the last moment and that the Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future rather than approving the extension of the cap-and-trade program through 2045 with this funding commitment attached.
Different views on the topic
Some California cities, particularly Los Angeles, strongly opposed the housing legislation due to concerns about loss of local control over zoning decisions. While the author presents this opposition as something overcome by public pressure, these municipalities argued that state-level mandates override community-specific planning considerations and local democratic processes in determining neighborhood character and development patterns.
Progressive Democrats and environmental advocates sharply criticized the oil drilling expansion as misguided policy that fails to address underlying issues. Assemblymember Alex Lee, chair of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, voted against the bill and characterized it as a “regulatory giveaway to Big Oil” that would do little to stabilize gas prices or refineries struggling because demand for oil is falling, arguing the state needs to “continue to focus on the future, not the past”[1]. Commentary in CalMatters suggests that fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t actually cut gas prices as promised[4]. Additionally, the legislative fix effectively circumvents a decade of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to limit drilling in Kern County, which produces three-fourths of California’s crude oil[1].
Community health organizations and frontline residents oppose oil production expansion based on public health concerns, particularly regarding Senate Bill 1137’s health protection zones. Over three million Californians currently live within 3,200 feet of an active well, with most being people of color and low-income individuals disproportionately impacted by associated health harms including reduced fetal growth, preterm birth, asthma, and reduced lung function[3]. Martha Dina Argüello of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles stated that families deserve “clean air, safe neighborhoods, and freedom from toxic drilling” and that buffer zone protections communities fought to establish should be upheld[3]. These advocates view the oil production expansion as undermining hard-won health and safety measures.
Housing production advocates acknowledge that while legislative reforms represent important progress, structural barriers remain that limit actual construction. California permitted approximately 102,000 homes in 2024, down from the prior year, with the steepest drop in multi-unit construction driven by high interest rates, labor costs, and tight credit[5]. Despite streamlining permits and shifting policy presumptions toward approval, financing constraints remain the biggest limitation on production, particularly for mixed-income and unsubsidized apartments. Furthermore, analysis shows that over 44,000 affordable homes in the pipeline are stalled and unable to begin construction due to lack of public funding, requiring an estimated $1.79 billion in state subsidies[2][6]. This suggests that regulatory reform alone, while valuable, cannot address California’s housing shortage without substantial public investment.
